I would go as low as *1/2. The whole endeavor also reminded me of Iron Man 2 (also *1/2). It felt just as bloated, overstuffed, and nonsensical, with none of the charm or intelligence that made the first installment such a joy to watch. It will take a miracle to save the franchise at this point.

Just out of curiosity, why did you find the film mediocre prior to the twist? I was truly immersed in it up until that point.

Completely unnecessary. I understand that Black wanted to bypass a traditional story arc, where Stark is at his lowest low and must work himself back up in order to defeat the Mandarin, but making the film a comedy just made everything seem like a joke. Also frustrating was the final showdown at the dockyards. Tons of stuff going boom, but with none of the heart that made me fall in love with The Avengers. What were Killian's motivations anyway? Why did he want to kill the President in the first place?

I wouldn't argue with your 1.5 star rating, and I agree with your points.

The motives for Aldrich Killian are extremely vague, but I do recall his rashness towards the president stemming from an oil leak that was vaguely mentioned toward the end, and the fact that he just wanted domination like a crazed-cliche villain.

As for the film prior to the twist, I was on board per se, but nothing about it struck me as genuine. The opening scenes in Switzerland felt cheezy. Black sets up a formulaic villain--the whole beginning portion just didn't sit right with me. I would have much preferred a deeper look into the Mandarin (use the time to create a backstory or give some development) to me that would have been time well spent. Instead, were given a guy who gets mad at Tony, which is just weak if you ask me. Also the majority of the second act is Tony trying to fix his suit, which really just felt like filler to me. Tony can call on any suits he wants in the film--this logic is set up during the battle scene in the third act. Yet the entire second act revolves around him fixing his suit. Yea, he can't get in touch with Jarvis because his suit is dead, but that doesn't stop him from making a call to Pepper Potts, leaving a voicemail through his helmet. This arguably means he could have called on another suit in some form or fashion--it's Tony Stark for Christ sake. There were more inconsistencies, but I wont harp on them. As you said, the film looses its merit through the comedic tone that takes full priority, and its definitely not better for it.

What Shane Black did with the Mandarin sounds pretty similar to what Chris Nolan did with Ra's Ahl Ghul in Batman Begins, I remember fans being pretty pissed about that too. Having never read the comic myself, I have no personal attachment to The Mandarin, so I don't mind the changes

What Shane Black did with the Mandarin sounds pretty similar to what Chris Nolan did with Ra's Ahl Ghul in Batman Begins, I remember fans being pretty pissed about that too. Having never read the comic myself, I have no personal attachment to The Mandarin, so I don't mind the changes

Yes, but Ra's al Ghul could still be taken seriously in Batman Begins. The Mandarin depicted in Iron Man 3 is an actual joke. I will admit that I accidentally stumbled upon this plot twist prior to seeing this movie, but it still jarred me nonetheless. Definitely ruins the first third of the movie.

I'll see it again just to make sure I feel the same way about it, but I am not pleased for the time being. I stand by my *1/2 rating, although I am a much tougher critic than others.

What Shane Black did with the Mandarin sounds pretty similar to what Chris Nolan did with Ra's Ahl Ghul in Batman Begins, I remember fans being pretty pissed about that too. Having never read the comic myself, I have no personal attachment to The Mandarin, so I don't mind the changes

Yes, but Ra's al Ghul could still be taken seriously in Batman Begins. The Mandarin depicted in Iron Man 3 is an actual joke. I will admit that I accidentally stumbled upon this plot twist prior to seeing this movie, but it still jarred me nonetheless. Definitely ruins the first third of the movie.

I'll see it again just to make sure I feel the same way about it, but I am not pleased for the time being. I stand by my *1/2 rating, although I am a much tougher critic than others.

some people have a different take on that don't see it as a "joke" like others say, here's one from Joblo

"I understand your frustration, but I think you missed the point. Ben Kingsley was never The Mandarin. Guy Pearce was, all the time, from the beginning. Killian's obsession with ancient Chinese symbolism is hinted many times, including the fact that he bears tattoos of dragons on his chest. He channels this admiration into his make-believe character ie Trevor, who plays a caricature version of Killian's own affliction towards that symbolism.

He also "breathes fire", as noticed by Rhodey; something The Mandarin does because, in many occasions, he's seen as a dragon. Although not really magic, this serves as a super power, and is grounded in science, in-line with everything else in the MCU as explained by Thor.

I can see why fans would be upset, but if you really think about it, The Mandarin is still the most terrifying force in this film. He used a dummy to do his dirty work, forever remaining in the shadows. He has the power to regenerate and heal within seconds, and also masterminds the entire agenda. I'm sure he'll be back too, and will somehow get tied-up with Thanos, because it's hinted that he has a "map of the universe" and has studied the Nine Realms, and beyond. Remember when he wanted to show Pepper his brain and instead projected a hologram of the universe?

So yeah, it would have been cool to see Kingsley's Mandarin do battle with Stark, but this version is awesome in its own way as well"

Sat May 04, 2013 8:28 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 346Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Vexer wrote:

some people have a different take on that don't see it as a "joke" like others say, here's one from Joblo

"I understand your frustration, but I think you missed the point. Ben Kingsley was never The Mandarin. Guy Pearce was, all the time, from the beginning. Killian's obsession with ancient Chinese symbolism is hinted many times, including the fact that he bears tattoos of dragons on his chest. He channels this admiration into his make-believe character ie Trevor, who plays a caricature version of Killian's own affliction towards that symbolism.

He also "breathes fire", as noticed by Rhodey; something The Mandarin does because, in many occasions, he's seen as a dragon. Although not really magic, this serves as a super power, and is grounded in science, in-line with everything else in the MCU as explained by Thor.

I can see why fans would be upset, but if you really think about it, The Mandarin is still the most terrifying force in this film. He used a dummy to do his dirty work, forever remaining in the shadows. He has the power to regenerate and heal within seconds, and also masterminds the entire agenda. I'm sure he'll be back too, and will somehow get tied-up with Thanos, because it's hinted that he has a "map of the universe" and has studied the Nine Realms, and beyond. Remember when he wanted to show Pepper his brain and instead projected a hologram of the universe?

So yeah, it would have been cool to see Kingsley's Mandarin do battle with Stark, but this version is awesome in its own way as well"

I never missed the point that Black was trying to put across. I understand that Aldrich Killian was the Mandarin all along. I can accept Ben Kingsley's character as a pawn, but that doesn't mean that it works. This essential write off of the Mandarin is done with humor at its center, and its not funny in my opinion. I was completely intrigued by Kingsley's version of the Mandarin up until the twist, and I couldn't have cared less about Aldrich. Aldrich doesn't come across as terrifying, he comes across as an pretty regular, cliched villain--one that has vague justifications and motives. This admiration of "chinese symbolism" doesn't come across as meaningful to the character in any form really. Kingsley was simply a pawn, someone to take the blame for incidents that occurred because of the Extremist technology. It just so happens that one of the soldiers in the program explodes in front of the Chinese Theater. The Mandarin has to take blame for this incident, so Aldrich and his PR people cook a some sort of resentment that the Mandarin has against the US for their mocking of Chinese culture. The theater could have been a Bollywood Theater, and the PR people would have probably had the Mandarin say it was because of the US mocking the Indian culture or what have you. In this sense, I don't see Aldrich being obsessed or committed to any Chinese code or symbolism. Yea, he has dragon tattoos and can breathe fire, you kinda have to give the viewer some evidence that he's "the Mandarin." So, I can't buy that debate.

Also making a Thor reference is dumfounding to me. Thor is an entity from another real/world, in essence he represents a "galactic" side to Marvel or even the Avengers for that matter. Thor is other-wordly, and qualities of the Mandarin are as well, at least from a historic point of view. Why not begin to implement these other characters that have intergalactic connections? This would have been a perfect opportunity for Black to explore a "magical" character, but instead he, in my opinion, takes the cheap way out and turns the icon of the Mandarin into a joke--which I can buy, but cannot except.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Sat May 04, 2013 9:40 pm

peng

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pmPosts: 1363Location: Bangkok

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Iron Man 3

Just to give my stance on previous installments, I like Iron Man less than most people and Iron Man2 more than most. The first one is a very strong origin story with a compelling, superbly-acted lead at the center, but ultimately I give it just strong 3.0. Iron Man 2, in my opinion, has a Spiderman-3 syndrome in that it seem like the orginial storyline gets muddled up by outside interference of what should be put in (the upcoming The Avengers / more recognizable villians), but it is still breezy, enjoyable and carried by very good performances all around enough to be a weak 3.0.

Now, Iron Man 3 falls somewhere in between. After it ended I had a feeling that its reaction is going to be pretty divided. One thing, though, that no one can say about this is that the director got neutralized by the studio or the need to conform to the established material. I just watched Kiss Kiss Bang Bang not long ago and enjoyed it a great deal, and it's startling how much Shane Black carried over from that movie, right down to setting it around Christmas and physical violence played for shock comedy, with RDJ at the center of it nonetheless. It's not so much that he integrated his style into Iron Man 3 as much as he filtered Iron Man 3 through all his style. And the result is a clashing, very messy (but also very enjoyable) tone where I felt like I was watching both Iron Man 3 and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang playing side by side.

Although I laughed and was entertained by it, after I finished I was not sure for a moment how I felt overall. Maybe because it's just so unexpected: smaller in scale and very tongue-in-cheek tone. But the more I think about the movie the more I like how Black took his chances. The heart is still there (I love his scenes with the kid), the action set pieces very thrilling, the humour stayed on the right side of not being too silly (in my opinion of course, but there were times when it almost tipped over), and although many people feel different, I though the movie centered in on Stark's arc rather successfully. It made me think of The Dark Knight Rises, completely different in everything else of course, but similar in that it took the superhero mask off the lead more than usual to explore his character and his psyche, and like Christian Bale, RDJ relished his chance digging into his character. Also, I love the twist, maybe partly because I knew nothing about Iron Man lore. It shook up the story in a huge way and confounded the expectation of where the story will go next.

The rewatch of this movie is going to be interesting. I have a feeling that this time, not being taken aback by all the offbeat choices for a superhero movie, I might enjoy it even more, especially based on how I still find each rewatch of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang remaining as engaging as ever. For now, a solid 3.0/4.0 from me.

Iron Man 3 (2013) - It's being hashed out elsewhere to the n'th degree. I will summarize with 3.0 / 4.0. Action scenes were good to great, but there are some nagging inconsistencies and plot holes. Liked it better than "2", but less than "1".

He wanted to kill the president to put in place the VP who would be in his pocket because he was going to "fix" the VP's daughter who was in the wheel chair (with the leg that was amputated below the knee). He was going to it do with the spectacle on the oil tanker so people continued to believe it to be the work of the Mandarin, the anti-American zealot. He had to make it obvious that the Mandarin was behind it all and not some industrialist like himself or the VP.

Sat May 04, 2013 11:23 pm

CasualDad

Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pmPosts: 623

Re: Last Movie You Watched

The Life of Pi

The wife rented it last night and filled me with deep regret for not having seen it on the big screen. I can't say much that hasn't been said about it. I thought it was a fantastic first view that probably won't be nearly as interesting if ever watched again any time soon. 8/10.

Sun May 05, 2013 8:25 am

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6254Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Shane Carruth week for me.

Primer (2004) ***

Confusing, loaded with technospeak (or technobabble) but interesting in the way it refuses to dumb itself down for viewers Primer has a nice "fly on the wall" feeling going and a fresh, interesting look at time travel. I don't really think I could pass a multiple choice test on the events of the plot, but it was a cool movie to watch.

Upstream Color (2013) ???

Caught this in the Music Box in Chicago, and it makes Primer look positively simple. Long stretches without dialogue, utterly baffling scenes...gotta go read about this one

Who thought that it would be a good idea to use a man in a metal suit to guard the President? Anyone could be behind that mask.

Had that been one of the movie's only problems, I would be more forgiving. But seeing as the last two Iron Man movies have done a great job undoing the heart and realism of the first picture, I have to give both Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 the same rating. *1/2.

Sun May 05, 2013 10:48 am

thered47

Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pmPosts: 193

Re: Last Movie You Watched

House of BambooThis is a movie about a gang of robbers, led by Sandy and the undercover military police officer (Eddie, real name Sgt. Kenner) who tries to investigate them.

A rather boring story with some nice cinematography of Japan. Functions as a nice travelogue but that's it. There's also a rather glaring plot hole that crops up about half-way through. The most interesting element is a subdued homoerotic subtext between Sandy and Eddie, but even that was not enough to hold my interest all the way through. (I might have started fast forwarding through the final half hour...)

The plot hole I referred to comes after Eddie participates in a robbery with the gang. After this point, no one realizes there is no point to Eddie continuing the undercover gig, he could just go back to his police handlers right then and there and have the gang arrested. Instead he continues as an undercover agent for months, as there seems to be some notion that the only way for this to end is to have the police arrest the gang members during an actual robbery. But this is silly, not only is that going to be a very dangerous way to go about it, there's no need. Eddie knows everyone in the gang, and witnessed the leader, Sandy participating in a robbery in which a man was killed. This isn't the kind of situation like with most organized crime, where the higher ups who don't participate in the criminal acts are the ones the authorities really want to go after. This is just a small gang of about 10 people in which the leader himself participates in the heists.

I mean how exactly is what Eddie witnessed not sufficient evidence to have Sandy and everyone else in the gang prosecuted immediately after the first robbery he participated in? One in which members of the gang used smoke pots that they stole during the first robbery (that initiated Eddie going under cover). And it's not like Japan isn't known for having a particularly high prosecution rate or anything of oh say, around 99%. So why have Eddie wait around with the gang for months, which increases his chances of being exposed as an undercover agent, when there'e nothing holding the authorities back from going forward with a prosecution after the first robbery?

The only innovation this gang brings to the table is to kill any members who get injured during a heist, thereby preventing them from blabbing to the police. My understanding is that usually, such gangs are going to be cultivating a high level of gang loyalty, in order to prevent people to blabbing to the police period. The whole kill any gang member who gets injured during a heist thing would kind of make that difficult and I imagine this would make most gang members rather susceptible to bribery when a heist isn't going on... But anyways... I'm now just nitpicking.

I can totally buy your notion that Nichols wrote himself into a corner so to speak. Mud works best in the first two acts because there is a sort of mysterious, fabled feel to where all of this is headed. That feel and tone is kind of destroyed by the "balls to the wall shootout" at the end (that doesn't feel needed), and we really don't need to see Mud, on the boat alive, at the end--it kinda made me shake my head. Leaving it open would have been much more appropriate in my opinion, and would have further grounded the shroud of mystery in the character Mud.

That is what I meant when I said the film would've been served better by never introducing these so-called hunters to begin with. Nichols would've been able to maintain the fabled feel you rightly pointed till the end that way. When he showed the mob lining up outside the door, I began fearing the worst and although it wasn't as bad as I imagined, it wasn't very good either.

With regards to the final scene, most people had similar problems with Take Shelter as well. Nichols seems to have the tendency to close things out rather cleanly by letting us know the fates of every individual when that is not really needed.

The final scene in that film depicts that the apocalypse Michael Shannon's character dreamt of has arrived. However, there are a lot of allegorical implications for ending the film that way. This was discussed in Reelviews a while ago by NotHughGrant where he pointed out that it could be seen as the family beginning to share Shannon's paranoia. There are a number of other conclusions we can draw from that ending as well.

In contrast, no such excuses can be made for the final scene in Mud. While it was liberating in its own way, it was totally unnecessary and certainly lessened the impact of the brilliant build-up in the first two acts.

The film is about how to balance one's boyish sense of wonder and adventure with a more realistic mindset. Taking the mystery away from Mud's character, and losing the overall fabled feel of the film, absolutely fits in with that idea. Ellis has to mature and see the world the way it actually is. Part of that is experiencing heartbreak for the first time and part of that is realizing the Mud he's romanticized in his mind isn't the actual Mud.

So Ellis matures and moves on to the next girl as any 14 year old would. Mud lives and realizes he and Juniper aren't meant to be, but as the final shot of the film shows, still has some of that sense of wonder and beauty left in him. It's hopeful that he's matured too without completely abandoning who he is.

I do agree, however, that the shootout felt a bit out of place with the rest of the tone of the film. Still, it's yet another way that Ellis realizes Mud actually is dangerous and doesn't have the sense of control over his situation that Ellis (and the viewers) have believed he does.

It's a wonderful movie that is either the best, or second best, I've seen this year.

JackBurns wrote:

Bubble (2005) 3/4

Soderbergh crafts a subtle film using nonprofessional actors to ground a narrative in pure realism. I loved the noir-ish feel that this film encapsulated through setting and cinematography. The emotions of the characters are clearly presented; yet never have to be spelled out. My only complaint comes from the film’s tone, which felt very awkward at times. I would say this tone was intentional, but it didn’t seem constant and ended up just bothering me. Regardless this film comes recommended.

This is something of a mini-masterpiece in my estimation. It's all kinds of clever and anti-Hollywood down to almost every detail. It's so plain and straightforward, but wholly original and compelling. It's just great.

Mon May 06, 2013 1:08 am

Blonde Almond

Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pmPosts: 507Location: The Desert

Re: Last Movie You Watched

JackBurns wrote:

JamesKunz wrote:

Upstream Color (2013) ???

Caught this in the Music Box in Chicago, and it makes Primer look positively simple. Long stretches without dialogue, utterly baffling scenes...gotta go read about this one

Seeing this on Friday. I've heard really good things.

I've been wanting to see this, but it looks like it's not going to play anywhere around the Phoenix area. I guess I'll have to settle for the DVD release, which is alright since it's coming out in only one more day.

_________________"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."Letterboxd Profile

The film is about how to balance one's boyish sense of wonder and adventure with a more realistic mindset. Taking the mystery away from Mud's character, and losing the overall fabled feel of the film, absolutely fits in with that idea. Ellis has to mature and see the world the way it actually is. Part of that is experiencing heartbreak for the first time and part of that is realizing the Mud he's romanticized in his mind isn't the actual Mud.

So Ellis matures and moves on to the next girl as any 14 year old would. Mud lives and realizes he and Juniper aren't meant to be, but as the final shot of the film shows, still has some of that sense of wonder and beauty left in him. It's hopeful that he's matured too without completely abandoning who he is.

I do agree, however, that the shootout felt a bit out of place with the rest of the tone of the film. Still, it's yet another way that Ellis realizes Mud actually is dangerous and doesn't have the sense of control over his situation that Ellis (and the viewers) have believed he does.

It's a wonderful movie that is either the best, or second best, I've seen this year.

The third act just ultimately felt out of place to me. I can buy that it's a progression for Ellis (really like that btw), and his struggle to get past his childhood notions--yet the ending just feels too happy go lucky. Leaving what happened to Mud open ended would have worked much better for me personally, I don't think we need to seem him on the boat with his father figure, Ellis' progression would still work perfectly fine, and keep that sort of mystic feel intact. It doesn't need to restate it with a cheery-eyed Mud peeping over the bow of the ship at the end, but thats just me.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Mon May 06, 2013 9:51 am

Unke

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pmPosts: 474

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Cloud Atlas (2012)It's nearly impossible to summarise this movie, because it consists of six different but vaguely connected stories: The first is about the 19th century Pacific sailing voyage of an ailing merchant who discovers a runaway slave as a stowaway. The second story concerns a young and talented aide to a cranky composer of classical music in the 1920ies, who relays much of his story by letters to his gay friend. The third story is about an investigative journalist in 1970ies San Francisco discovering an environmental scandal and being targeted by an evil corporation. The fourth - rather farcical - story takes place in 2012 and follows the fate of a London-based publisher who is hounded by the family of a thuggish author. The fifth story is about cloned workers in a dystopian, Brave New World-like society in futuristic Neo-Seoul. The final story takes place in a Waterworld-esque post-apocalyptic world where tattooed tribesmen live in fear of cannibals. All of these stories are thematically linked - basically, they are all about a desire for freedom and about individuals overcoming resistance and conventions -, which is further underlined by constant meta-references (e.g. music composed in one segment - the eponymous Cloud Atlas Suite - is listened to in another) and the same actors (Tom Hanks, Hale Berry, Susan Sarandon, Jm Broadbent, Hugo Weaving and others) playing different characters across ethnicity- and gender-lines in the different segments. With a structure like this, it isn't too surprising that 'Cloud Atlas' is borderline confusing at times. The movie isn't overly convoluted as such, but it requires close attention on behalf of the audience, which isn't a bad thing initself at all, if the film manages to keep the audience interested. Thankfully, 'Cloud Atlas' is a very interesting piece of work, although some segments work better than others. The storyline about suppressed clones in a sci-fi dystopia is a bit trite, for example, because it is just an abbreviated version of 'Metropolis' to which it merely adds a few gun fights and generic visual ideas taken from other sci-fi movies. It does look good, though. On the other hand, some plot strands are really well done. For instance, I liked how the story segment set in 70ies San Francisco has been filmed in a style resembling 70ies thrillers. The structure of 'Cloud Atlas' also results in (sometimes radical) shifts in tone. The three filmmakers - Andy and Lana Wachowski plus Tom Tykwer - have generally handled this well, though, so it doesn't become a problem. Nevertheless, particularly in the light of some underdeveoped plot strands, I would have preferred if they had dropped one or two storylines and concentrated on the rest.There are a few further problems with Cloud Atlas: The make-up jobs, which are required to change ethnicity, gender or age of the actors, aren't consistently good. Especially the "yellowface" of white actors looks pretty unconvincing and ridiculous. Hugo Waving as an evil nurse does even look unintentionally comical and reminds you of his role as a drag queen in 'The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert'. In general, the idea to have the same actors play these different roles proves to be distracting: Often, I was taken out of the movie by "Oh, that's Tom Hanks"-moments or wondering, in which disguise Hugh Grant would show up in any particular sequence. It is also mystifying that the filmmakers have chosen to use a narrator in the beginning and the end, who is mumbling in a futuristic simplified pidging English, which is incomprehensible at times - not just to a non-native speaker like me, but even to my wife who grew up in the Scottish Borders and knows a thing or two about impregnable accents.I've been rambling on without making much sense - not unlike 'Cloud Atlas'. Indeed, it is hard to pinpoint an overall meaning or statement of this movie on a first viewing. I have the slight suspicion that, after multiple viewings, the underlying message might be a simple (and dumb) as "everything is connected" or something similar, but that won't keep me from watching this intruiging and intelligent film for a second time in order to find out. A fine movie and very nearly a very good one: 7/10

Mon May 06, 2013 11:52 am

Sexual Chocolate

Director

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pmPosts: 1754Location: New Hampshire

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Cloud Atlas was my favorite film of 2012. But I get where you're coming from...it can definitely leave people a little aloof. I will definitely watch it again sometime.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

Mon May 06, 2013 4:16 pm

MGamesCook

Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pmPosts: 1807

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Pain & Gain

Excellent caper procedural. Bay makes a virtue of his usually superficial style. Acting is very good, and as a comedy it really works; very funny. Bay hits the themes over your head with a sledge hammer, but it just about works. The motif of the American flag is effective. The point is made.

Mon May 06, 2013 4:23 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6254Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Blonde Almond wrote:

JackBurns wrote:

JamesKunz wrote:

Upstream Color (2013) ???

Caught this in the Music Box in Chicago, and it makes Primer look positively simple. Long stretches without dialogue, utterly baffling scenes...gotta go read about this one

Seeing this on Friday. I've heard really good things.

I've been wanting to see this, but it looks like it's not going to play anywhere around the Phoenix area. I guess I'll have to settle for the DVD release, which is alright since it's coming out in only one more day.

Well do chime in with your thoughts, guys. I have no idea what to make of it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum